Talk:Foreign relations of Israel

Countries with no relations

Could we get a list of the nations which do not have any diplomatic relations with Israel? -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 00:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

-

From what I can tell off the Foreign Ministry of Israels website. These are the current nations that have no diplomatic relations with Israel. [1]

Afghanistan, Algeria, Bangladesh, Comoros, Djibouti, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen.

I think thats all of them....can you double check for me, or is it fine to just put the list up now? -Xineoph Fine? 6:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

--

According to Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs website, these countries can also be included on the list above:

Bahrain, Bhutan, Brunei, Chad, Cuba, Guinea, Mali, Morocco, Niger, and North Korea.

Taiwan and Western Sahara do not have diplomatic relations with Israel either, but they are not recognized as independent by most countries. Montenegro has recently declared independence, which has already been recognized by Israel, but both countries have not yet established formal diplomatic relations. Dave 12:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Current statement in the Diplomatic Relations section is "All Lusophone countries, including the African ones of Guinea Bissau, Equatorial Guinea, Mozambique and Cape Verde, maintain diplomatic relations with Israel." Equatorial Guinea is not a Lusophone country. It was a colony of Spain prior to independence. It does recognize Isreal. Two Lusophone African nations were left out of the statement - - Both Angola & Sao Tome and Principe were Portuguese colonies in Africa. Both recognize Israel. Chastwn (talk) 09:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, some one has provided completely false information(with no links) in relation to Pakistan's recognition of Israel. Pakistan has clearly stated that any recognition of Israel is only possible after a 'two state’ solution to the Israel-Palestinian problem, which obviously is not the case at the moment. And all this can be verified at the respective Israeli, Pakistani foreign ministry websites as none of them have any diplomatic relations what so ever. I was hoping some one could fix this, thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.133.71.141 (talk) 14:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Frikkin' huge templates

Is it really necessary to have both of these on here? They are obnoxiously large and overbearing for this article. I also have no idea how to get the word "diplomatically" out from behind the map picture without it moving down. --TJive 10:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I dont know how to sort out the templates or make it so the text starts from the top like it should do, so I've added the cleanup tag. 82.21.150.24 00:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The article is a formatting nightmare and I don't know how to fix it. --TJive 12:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Chris McGreal

McGreal is an unreputable unencyclopedic source: [2]. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

CAMERA is the unreputable, biased source and I won't bother reading what smear job they have to do upon McGreal. The Guardian newspaper, on the other hand, is a world newspaper with circulation in millions and there is absolutely no reason that you can reject a feature article from it as unreliable.

What actual facts are you rejecting, anyway? You should only remove the information that you think is incorrect, not the entire thing. And most of this stuff should be common knowledge to people aware of SA-Israel relations. Deuterium 09:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

"smear job" is what you are trying to do here. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is a third source - an excerpt from a book on Israel's foreign relations - that confirms the relationship and the nuclear program: [3]

Do you also reject the FAS as an unreliable source, too, given that they document the SA-Israel connection regarding the nuclear program? Deuterium 09:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

That you rejected CAMERA but present that political blog as credible tells a lot. Please try to find a better source than that. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I've marked that section POV because it describes only a small area of a complex phenomenon. It seems that certain editors are only interested in dirt on the subject omitting everything else. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 18:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Well why dont you add info on the "complex phenomenon" so that we understand the context better. The section may be incomplete. It is not POV. --Burgas00 19:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for such precious advice. Until this is fixed, the tag stays. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand issues related to Israel are important to you and that you feel that there is an international conspiracy against this country. This is a very common attitude among a small number of nationalist wikipedians. However, putting an NPOV tag on every historical fact which may possibly put Israel in a bad light is not a solution on wikipedia. I assure you German wikipedians do not put NPOV tags on the section of the History of Germany article related to the holocaust. Despite the fact that it was, in your words, "a small area of a complex phenomenon".

Unless you can clearly explain why you feel this is NPOV the tag should be removed. --Burgas00 23:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This is not about me. Please review WP:CIV, WP:NPA and WP:NPOV.

I am not here to educate you, but in the spirit of goodwill I'll explain: the relations between these two countries is not limited to the allegations added here by POV pushers. I find your bringing the Holocaust into this and other unrelated discussions [4] highly distasteful and uncivil. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The relations between these two countries is not limited to the allegations added here by POV pushers.

That is not an explanation. Expand on the article if you like, consider it a stub, but it is not POV. This was a controversial part of Israel's foreign policy. --Burgas00 10:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Misquoting

Here is what User:Deuterium adds [5]: "The countries developed a joint arms industry and a shared secret nuclear program" and here is a quote from his own source [6]: "available evidence argues against significant cooperation." Please explain. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 07:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Since you take that source so seriously, why do you keep trying to delete it?

Secondly, you are blatantly misrepresenting the source by only including part of the sentence. The whole sentence reads as thus:

A common question is whether Israel provided South Africa with weapons design assistance, although available evidence argues against significant cooperation.

So the sentence fragment you are pretending is evidence against a joint programme only applies to "weapons design assistance".

While you're reading that source, why don't you also read these sentences (reproduced in full):

Faced with sanctions, South Africa began to organize clandestine procurement networks in Europe and the United States, and it began a long, secret collaboration with Israel. These secret dealings for technology, knowledge, material, and equipment were designed to meet South Africa's armaments needs as effectively and economically as possible.

Who's misquoting now? Deuterium 07:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

You. This doesn't say anything about "joint arms industry and a shared secret nuclear program". And now I quoted your own source but your remove the quote saying "citations that are being suppressed". Itchy fingers? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 07:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, let us see you add the quote about "clandestine procurement networks in Europe and the United States" in articles on foreign relations of the US and Europe. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 07:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

No, you were clearly misrepresenting the article by using only part of that sentence. Why can't you admit it?

You are also claiming I was removing quotes from my own source, when in fact you removed the whole citation at least once [7]

As for what quotes show there were a joint arms industry and shared secret nuclear programme, how about these from the Guardian article --

The biggest secret of all was the nuclear one. Israel provided expertise and technology that was central to South Africa's development of its nuclear bombs. Israel was embarrassed enough about its close association with a political movement rooted in racial ideology to keep the military collaboration hidden.

Vorster's visit laid the ground for a collaboration that transformed the Israel-South Africa axis into a leading weapons developer and a force in the international arms trade. Liel, who headed the Israeli foreign ministry's South Africa desk in the 80s, says that the Israeli security establishment came to believe that the Jewish state may not have survived without the relationship with the Afrikaners.

Furthermore, please don't post confrontational material on my talk page such as "you were caught" Deuterium 07:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

We are talking about this edit of yours: [8]. Your text in question is: "The countries developed a joint arms industry and a shared secret nuclear program", but the source you're quoting says: "A common question is whether Israel provided South Africa with weapons design assistance, although available evidence argues against significant cooperation." [9] Deuterium, you wrote the opposite to your own source.

I strongly reject your charge of "blatantly misrepresenting the source" - unlike you, I quoted within the context: [10]. FYI, quoting a part of a sentence within the context is perfectly fine. So yes, you were caught and so far you have no good explanation: instead you chose to pile on irrelevant details and to cover your misbehavior by attacking me. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It is bemusing to see that in the light of the above User:Deuterium still continues to add the text contradicting his own source: [11]. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Vela Incident

Removing: first, it is a rumor. Second, let's remember that our subject is Foreign relations of Israel. So, what is the relation here? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? The article is basically denying that any relationship between South Africa and Israel existed and rubbishes the 2 token sources which suggest the contrary. And you are telling me that joint nuclear tests are irrelevant to the foreign policy of Israel? --Burgas00 13:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Nuclear tests conducted by Israel are somewhat relevant to the foreign policy of Israel. Unexplained flashes in the Indian ocean, alleged by some anonymous authors to possibly be a nuclear test in which Israel may or may not have participated, with or possibly without the cooperation of other nations, one of which may or may not be South Africa, and all of this without a shred of evidence - is a speculative conspiracy theory, perhaps worthy of a Hollywood movie, but one which has no place in an Encyclopedia. Isarig 16:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Isarig is correct. See WP:RS & WP:V. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

It is well known that Israel and South Africa developed their nuclear programme together. Who else would Israel get its nuclear weapons from? The US? India? I dont think so. Whatever, Im not going to argue over this.--Burgas00 13:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't you mean the other way round ? According to rumors/reports, Israel developed its nuclear weapons with the aid of France. Amoruso 13:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

While is technically "well known" Israel has nuclear weapons and probably intentionally spread the rumor around, It keeps nuclear ambiguity, Therefore noone can accuse it of having them without basically calling Israel liars. So i believe it has very little to do with foreign relations as noone would dare without a mountainload of proof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.223.233.45 (talk) 19:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Source please

"The reason for the relationship was largely due to the fact that after the Six Day War in 1967, most African countries broke diplomatic ties with Israel." - Who says this was the reason? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Foreign relations pages

Please see Israel-Venezuela relations and Israel-New Zealand relations. They could both use the perspectives of Israelis. There appears to be a revived movement to merge the Israel-Ven relations page into Foreign relations of Venezuela so I urge other users to vote against this. Respectfully, Republitarian 19:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Avraham, User:Jayjg, User:Humus sapiens

Why are you replacing this

According to David Albright of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, "Faced with sanctions, South Africa began to organize clandestine procurement networks in Europe and the United States, and it began a long, secret collaboration with Israel." although he goes on to say "A common question is whether Israel provided South Africa with weapons design assistance, although available evidence argues against significant cooperation."

with this

According to David Albright of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, "... available evidence argues against significant cooperation."

Surely the larger quote is more accurate and representative of what he actually says in the paper, rather than a misrepresentative sentence fragment? The sentence fragment is not evidence against a joint programme but only applies to "weapons design assistance".

Secondly, why did you remove the fact that Chris McGreal wrote in the Guardian? That's a relevant fact regarding the credibility of the story; he did not self-publish his article.

Thirdly, why did you restore the sentence "Israeli ambassadors spoke publicly against racism in apartheid South Africa." despite the fact there are no citations that ambassadors did do such a thing?

Fourthly, why did you replace "Israel developed a relationship with South Africa during the 1970s and 1980s." with "There are controversial claims that Israel developed a relationship with South Africa during the 1970s and 1980s."? Are you denying that Israel and South Africa did have a relationship during the 70s and 80s, against the many sources in the article? Do you have sources that claim this?

Thank you, Deuterium 00:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Recognition of Israel

Many of the countries listed as having no formal diplomatic ties with Israel have, in fact, formally recognised Israel as a state, including some major Arab countries. I'm sorry I haven't found the actual citation yet. Perhaps somebody should research this as I feel it deserves a mention.

Chad's recognition of Israel

This: [12] would seem to indicate that Chad recognizes Israel... am I mistaken? KazakhPol 05:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Based on that, they tried to 2 years ago but still not listed as such on the Israeli government website. That-Vela-Fella 16:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Taiwan's recognition of Israel

I think Taiwan recognises Israel (they do cooperate on many matters). In Taiwan's case diplomatic recognition is usually a one way street (Taiwan recognises Britain, but Britian doesn't recognise Taiwan) Kransky 10:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Some nation i added

indonesia, some country do not and some how do not even put the israel in the world map and theres only palestine. I think that should be mention in the article.--60.52.25.23 10:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC) Could you clarify what you propose us to do? Canutethegreat 22:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Pakistan incorrect information

Hey, some one has provided completely false information(with no links) in relation to Pakistan's recognition of Israel. Pakistan has clearly stated that any recognition of Israel is only possible after a 'two state’ solution to the Israel-Palestinian problem, which obviously is not the case at the moment. And all this can be verified at the respective Israeli, Pakistani foreign ministry websites as none of them have any diplomatic relations what so ever. I was hoping some one could fix this, thank you. http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/pakistan/2005/pakistan-050902-irna01.htm

Shouldn't be just a List of Bilateral Relations

A list is useful, be we also have categories and templates for that. Most of this articles should be deleted or split out to inididual articles for bilateral realtions. This article shoudl deal with trends and general characteristics. Kevlar67 (talk) 20:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

T.R.N.C.

I have removed the following text about the TRNC:

Israel recently gave de-facto economic regocnition to it.[13]

This statement does not seem to be supported by the source. Nor am I certain that it makes sense for Israel to de facto recognize it: either Israel recognizes it or it doesn't. The actual source suggests: "The move sends diplomatic signals that Israel is considering acceptance of the Turkish breakaway state founded in 1983 and recognized only by Turkey." I'm not so sure about this, since there appear to be no official statements to back anything up. So, since it appears quite speculative, I suggest holding off until more concrete sources emerge. Silly rabbit (talk) 12:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

BBC survey

According to a BBC World Service poll [14] (see also BBC article), Israel was the least popular country in the world at least at the time of the poll. I want to avoid jumping to conclusions, so I decided to ask here because I don't know about the quality of the survey. Where would this information best fit in, or is it suitable at all? Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 15:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, there were also other surveys with similar result: [15] Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 15:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

It would fit nowhere, as this is not a beauty contest, nor some variant of American Idol. okedem (talk) 16:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

No... it's information from a reliable source that may be included on Wikipedia. Also note that I'm asking where this info would be most suitable. Also consider WP:NPOV. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 16:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Not everything a reliable source says should be written here. This shouldn't, because it's nothing but a silly survey, and this isn't a popularity contest (what is this, highschool?). And NPOV has nothing to do with this. This is a bit of reason needed to edit an encyclopedia (regardless of the survey's results, it's just not encyclopedic information; even if Israel was the most popular country according to the survey, I'd still tell you it has no place here). Why are you even accusing me (and that's what you're doing) of POV? What's the grounds for that? Me disagreeing with you? okedem (talk) 16:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Popularity contest? It's a large survey about how Israel is seen in the world. Sorry for the NPOV jab, that was uncalled for. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 16:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Still, that's what it is, a popularity contest. This article is about foreign relations, meaning relations with foreign countries. If there's an article specifically discussing Israel's image in the public's eyes, then maybe this will fit there. okedem (talk) 16:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

That's why I asked instead of just editing away. I still wouldn't call this a popularity contest though, and even if it were, what speaks against a simple formulation regarding a primary source? Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 17:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

ASF has nothing to do with this. We're discussing relevance, not formulation. And this simply isn't relevant to this article, probably not to any article on Wikipedia. There are trillions and trillions of facts in the world. The vast majority of which aren't worth mentioning, including most silly public surveys. okedem (talk) 18:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Silly surveys or surveys of the silly public? Ne'ermind, I get your point. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 23:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be included, I mean the same argument can be used against the pro-Israelis for stating that Israel is the most democratic yadda in the region #jees this isnt a popularity contest guys!'.86.138.248.126 (talk) 00:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Erm... whatever. This is not about pro or contra Israel at all, please avoid such language and sentiments. It's just a bit of information that may or may not be incorporated here or elsewhere in a fully neutral fashion sometime, but not now. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 05:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

United Kingdom?

Why is the UK not included in this article? As far as I know, we have strong relations with Israel since its inception, which we helped to create through the British Mandate of Palestine. It is puzzling that there is not a subsection devoted to the UK.

Indeed strange, but not due to any editorial decision. Anyone (you, perhaps?) is welcome to add such a section. okedem (talk) 13:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I am a British Jew and would love to see a UK-Israel relations featured on a separate page. I know nothing of wikipedia, though, which means I really cannot help edit (certainly not editing well, at least)

Which countries to add?

Many of the sections on countries are helpful (expands more on just simply "recognizes/doesn't recognize"), but are some necessary? (For example, the UAE section: "The United Arab Emirates does not recognize the state of Israel." This can be said for several other countries (and is, in more detail). I'd clean it up, but not having an editorial history with this controversial topic (as all topics dealing with Israel inherently are), I'd feel better mentioning it here and letting those who are doing most of the work on this take a look at which sections need to be in the article. (I agree that most should stay). --Canuckguy (talk) 13:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)